No ego = bullshit

[Nick]

I consider products of my labor as absolutely absolute. After all they are part of the All.

What you want to view as a product of your labor, I could view as a product of your parents, or your family, society as a whole, or anything else I want, but none of it can be considered absolute. It's all dependent on how the observer is defining it, and when talking about absolutes, we are definitely not talking about things that depend on any particular observer to subjectively define it's existence.

[Nick]

I want to add another thing to my argument Skip,

I'm going to assume that what you mean when you assert that an egoless being would die, it would be because he sees no ultimate meaning to ensure his survival by eating, sleeping, maintaining good hygiene, and all those sort of things. So I have to ask; so what if there's no ultimate meaning in ensuring one's survival? If I have no ego, I'm still going to prefer a state of comfort over a state of discomfort caused by sleep deprivation, starvation, and bacterial infection. Any conscious being, with our without ego would choose comfort over pain and suffering. Not to say that most people don't get an ego boost out of experiencing pleasure and avoiding pain, but this is not necessarily the case. So if my assumption about your assertion is correct, an egoless human would have no problem carrying out basic tasks that would most likely result in his continued survival. If anything is going to cause him to die, it would be the ignorance and intolerance of other humans who see him as useless or threatening to their own existence.

I also want to add that since our physiology demands that we need to do certain things to survive, and evolution has made sure of it by causing us to experience pain and suffering if we don't take care of our bodies, it actually works out quite nicely in helping the egoless individual go on living. Because chances are if his body stopped sending him signals in the form of pain that he was doing a poor job of maintaining his health, there would be a much greater risk of death.

[Carl G]

I consider products of my labor as absolutely absolute. After all they are part of the All.

What you want to view as a product of your labor, I could view as a product of your parents, or your family, society as a whole, or anything else I want,

Indeed, the products of my labor are all those things. And they are part of the All, which by my way of thinking makes them absolute.

but none of it can be considered absolute. It's all dependent on how the observer is defining it, and when talking about absolutes, we are definitely not talking about things that depend on any particular observer to subjectively define it's existence.

So, by your definition, things which are part of the Absolute may not be absolute. Interesting interpretation.

[Nick]

Think of it this way Carl, we know that when we are talking about The All, it is always going to have the same meaning because it leaves nothing aside from it by definition, it is unbounded which is what makes it absolute and independent of the observer. Something like a tree, lake, or a car are dependent on an observer to carve out it's boundaries which is why I say that all finite things are not absolute.

[Matt Gregory]

I'm usually not one to argue semantics, but I'll persist here. Goals themselves always have to be distinct from the person who has them. To the sage, nothing is distinct from himself. Goals are an end. To the sage, there is no end.

I agree that greater consciousness leads to greater responsibility, but that is still deluded thinking. It is a desire to reach beyond cause and effect. The only goal that a sage can have is that which is without any delusions, and that kind of goal would necessarily have to stop being a goal.

What you're talking about here is passive egotism. It's the direct opposite of sagehood. What you're talking about is more like damage control for someone who still has an ego. But the sage doesn't have one, so doesn't need to play these kind of mind games with himself. He can't do anything egotistical because the means for egotism is no longer there.

Well, you can call it damage control :-). Or you can call it investigating every part of oneself, because the ego is never really dead, and always seeks to expand. Even people like Nietzsche, Kierkegaard and probably even Gautama(the most superior imo) had egos - no matter how small - which occasionally resurfaced. So I think that continually questioning oneself in these regards is quite useful.

That's another issue. Let's figure out where we're going first and then worry about how we're going to get there. I like to take things one step at a time.

[skipair]

Nick, interesting points you bring up, I like having conversations with you. I've kinda run outa of steam with THIS conversation for now, but maybe I'll be able to pick it up later on.

[jupiviv]

That's another issue. Let's figure out where we're going first and then worry about how we're going to get there. I like to take things one step at a time.

The issue is whether the sage can have goals or not. I said that he can't, in the normal sense. I think that goals are impossible to be had by sages, because he would never attach value to things, except truth, which is not a "thing" at all, but the All. Hence, he would never strive/work towards that goal, or look at it, the way normal people do their goals. In a sense, he would already have achieved that goal.

The essential difference between the goals of the sage and that of normal people is that the sage's goals are without delusions. And that itself necessarily eliminates the possibility of a sage having a goal, because goals themselves are delusions.

[Matt Gregory]

The issue is whether the sage can have goals or not. I said that he can't, in the normal sense. I think that goals are impossible to be had by sages, because he would never attach value to things, except truth, which is not a "thing" at all, but the All. Hence, he would never strive/work towards that goal, or look at it, the way normal people do their goals. In a sense, he would already have achieved that goal.

The essential difference between the goals of the sage and that of normal people is that the sage's goals are without delusions. And that itself necessarily eliminates the possibility of a sage having a goal, because goals themselves are delusions.

Let's say a (perfect, prototypical) sage becomes hungry. He values his life, so his goal is to put some food in his stomach. He goes into the kitchen, cooks some food and eats it so that he's no longer hungry and thereby accomplishes his goal. Where is the delusion?

[jupiviv]

The issue is whether the sage can have goals or not. I said that he can't, in the normal sense. I think that goals are impossible to be had by sages, because he would never attach value to things, except truth, which is not a "thing" at all, but the All. Hence, he would never strive/work towards that goal, or look at it, the way normal people do their goals. In a sense, he would already have achieved that goal.

The essential difference between the goals of the sage and that of normal people is that the sage's goals are without delusions. And that itself necessarily eliminates the possibility of a sage having a goal, because goals themselves are delusions.

Let's say a (perfect, prototypical) sage becomes hungry. He values his life, so his goal is to put some food in his stomach. He goes into the kitchen, cooks some food and eats it so that he's no longer hungry and thereby accomplishes his goal. Where is the delusion?

I don't think that a perfect and prototypical sage would value his life - at least not as much as other people. He may eat food if it's available. Otherwise, he would not commit delusional acts(murder, violence, stealing) to get it. The sage is like a tree when it comes to goals - he works towards a goal only when caused to. There is very little force exerted by him.

[Loki]

I think you have two egos, the bad one and the good one. The good one is the sense of self which extends far past the normal boundaries that people usually project, and the bad self is the more traditional sense of self that most people have.

We can identify ourselves with whatever we want depending on what we are trying to accomplish or express. Saying that identifying with one thing is good, and another is bad implies they have inherent qualities, which is false thinking.

Lookie here, my point is that you identify with the truth, and you say that other identification is bad. Truth does not have inherent qualities, therefore by identifying with the truth (creating the good/bad duality) you are false thinking. Plus you are in contradiction for accusing me of false thinking, when you are doing the same thing. The only difference is that you identify with your so called Truth, and I identify with other things.

[Nick]

No you loki here,

You were talking about good/bad in relation to the ego and how we define it, as if viewing ourselves one way was morally superior to another. When I said it's a good idea to identify with truth I didn't mean it in a moral sense, I mean it in an intellectual sense.

For example, when I tell you it's a bad idea to identify with things that aren't absolute if you want to become enlightened, I am making no more of a moral judgment than if I were to tell you it's a bad idea to not check both ways before crossing the street.

Kapeesh?

[Matt Gregory]

I don't think that a perfect and prototypical sage would value his life - at least not as much as other people. He may eat food if it's available. Otherwise, he would not commit delusional acts(murder, violence, stealing) to get it. The sage is like a tree when it comes to goals - he works towards a goal only when caused to. There is very little force exerted by him.

I think we have differences regarding value and what it means, so let me convince you that valuing is no big deal. The way I look at it, valuing is distinct from attachment. Valuing is a necessary consequence of consciousness. Consciousness is a focus on reality, like a spotlight or something. It can only focus on one thing, one idea, at a time. It's flowing from thought to thought all the time, but there's really only one at any moment. So, the mind has to prioritize things so it can focus on things that are relevant to it. If it didn't focus, it would jump from one thing to another continually like ADHD and it would not be able to get anything done. The decisions as to what's relevant is what valuing is. There's nothing deluded about it. Delusion doesn't happen until the emotions kick in and make the person attached to something, which distorts that thing's value in the mind of the emotional person and causes them to think about that thing excessively. It's not that spending a lot of time on something is necessarily deluded - a sage can think about himself for days and days without attachment, because when some situation arises that needs to be dealt with, he can instantly switch focus to that thing and completely forget himself, so his mind is always 100% available for whatever needs to be done - it's strictly the emotional influence that makes a thought deluded.

[jupiviv]

I don't think that a perfect and prototypical sage would value his life - at least not as much as other people. He may eat food if it's available. Otherwise, he would not commit delusional acts(murder, violence, stealing) to get it. The sage is like a tree when it comes to goals - he works towards a goal only when caused to. There is very little force exerted by him.

I think we have differences regarding value and what it means, so let me convince you that valuing is no big deal. The way I look at it, valuing is distinct from attachment. Valuing is a necessary consequence of consciousness. Consciousness is a focus on reality, like a spotlight or something. It can only focus on one thing, one idea, at a time. It's flowing from thought to thought all the time, but there's really only one at any moment. So, the mind has to prioritize things so it can focus on things that are relevant to it. If it didn't focus, it would jump from one thing to another continually like ADHD and it would not be able to get anything done. The decisions as to what's relevant is what valuing is. There's nothing deluded about it. Delusion doesn't happen until the emotions kick in and make the person attached to something, which distorts that thing's value in the mind of the emotional person and causes them to think about that thing excessively. It's not that spending a lot of time on something is necessarily deluded - a sage can think about himself for days and days without attachment, because when some situation arises that needs to be dealt with, he can instantly switch focus to that thing and completely forget himself, so his mind is always 100% available for whatever needs to be done - it's strictly the emotional influence that makes a thought deluded.

I think that I misunderstood you. This was my point and I agree. The sage is not at all deluded - and this leads to a big difference between his goals, aims etc., and those of normal people.

[Matt Gregory]

I think that I misunderstood you.

It was entirely my fault. I have a really bad habit of getting frustrated when I'm misunderstood, which further reduces my ability to communicate, leading to further misunderstanding, etc. I should know better.

This was my point and I agree. The sage is not at all deluded - and this leads to a big difference between his goals, aims etc., and those of normal people.

Yeah, I agree that they're a lot different.

[John Orez]

The ego is what makes you, you. Without it, you are no more than a rock. A rock that has what amounts to a processor able to manipulate the muscles attached to it. Science has already explained that everything in the universe is made up of one material. This is what we mean when we say we are all one. You are a biological robot. If you look at any machine, especially those made in the image and likeness of a human, you will notice that it is identical in every way, bones(metal), veins(hoses), muscles(hydraulics), brain(processor), eyes(camera), ears(microphone) and so on.

Continuing along this path you come to realize that as a human, you are specifically engineered to create and consequently destroy. You have been programmed, exactly the same way a computer is programmed, by everything you experience, which is all engineered by those in control. Try doing exactly as you please for even a single day. You will return home realizing how small our operating parameters really are.

The enlightened man is one without self. He has realized entirely these truths. It is not enough to understand them, but fundementally believe. The enlightened man becomes a channel in which the universe as a whole can speak, walk, touch, taste, see through. Your body is a universe. We are essentially a virus within our own body. We are programmed exactly the same way you program a computer to go as far away from enlightenment as possible. You may have even noticed by now that our language is entire made of 0's and 1's. All that is happening around you, all that has ever happened has been either a 0 or 1. Every action you take, you are either being manipulated into doing so as a slave, or manipulating others as a master. The enlightened man is neither. Only the enlightened man has true free will.

In this current time and space the human race has decided to destroy, more specifically each other. The smartest people have made a conscious decision to hit over the head the weakest man with an intellectual bone. Do you not remember the pain you felt when your skull cracked? The brute had an excuse, he knew no better. I have yet to achieve a state without ego permanently but for every moment or day I have, it becomes harder to exist within society, to go on being alive. At the peak there was moments of complete loss of fear, complete loss of will to continue. The closer you have come to death, or at least your brain thinking it has, the closer to enlightenment, ego loss, you have achieved. These things are necessary for survival and non existent in the enlightened man.

Fast, drink only water, eat only enough to simply stay alive; starve. You will become the animal you really are, you will see the truth and you will easily recover if you so choose.

The story of jesus is the story of the enlightened man. The truth seeker, the truth sayer, the truth doer will be systematically destroyed by all.

[Loki]

Interesting post Mr. Orez.

I too find it increasingly difficult to exist in society. I think most people are constantly practicing to be skilled at stimulating each others egos to create and maintain happiness for themselves and each other. Their entire lives are prioritized around "staying up."

If you spend too much time trying to enlarge your consciousness, next thing you know, you lose the ability to stay in harmony with the rhythm and key of those around you.

[Little Idiot]

I feel that we need to be clear on this idea of loosing the ego. It has been taught in the ancient traditions, and misunderstood in the west.
As pointed out by some posters here, to have no ego makes functioning in the world impossible. Although fanatical mystics see this as a goal, the Sage does not. Look at the sages, they are not sat in with-drawl form the world, they are the exact opposite, working in the world.
Therefore loss of the ego, destruction of the ego etc is a misunderstanding of the Sages state, can you see that he needs his ego to function in the world in the way he does?

Many Sages show humour, and humour shows the existance of emotion and feeling, humour shows ego.
So, if we work on the idea that the Sage has an ego, what is the real meaning of the teachings from all traditional sources in regards of the ego?

The answer is, simply subjugation of the ego to the higher self. A sages ego exists and is fully and permanently subjugated to his higher self, the 'God in me' to borrow the sufi term.
To talk about ego destruction is to set up a goal which is unrealistic and actually misleading. It also sets up a bondary of fear, which can prevent us stepping over the edge when the blessed oportunity arrises.

Therefore, in one sense I have to agree the the title of the thread 'no ego = bullshit' because it is impossible. But we must ballance that with the complementary opposite; the essence of the spiritual path is ego reduction, the highest state of spiritual attainment is ego subjugation.

The 'destruction' of the ego is possible, but only as a tempory effect and it is more accurate to say it becomes passive, as it will revive and is not really destroyed, similar to deep sleep. This happend in nirvipalka samahdi, the experience of the void, the second highest state of human consiousness. By its very nature, a trance state, it is temporary. Some of the rarest mosr esoteric texts describe the ultimate stage, that of the Sage, sahaja samhadi is a permanent state and therefore higher by definition.

Mr Orez, I too have been through times of with-drawl and understanding the illusionary nature (by which I simply mean not-timeless) and seeming triviality of normal life.
However, this is a phase, through which we pass by a clearer understanding.
Understand this is you would move along the path to the next stage; The physical world IS real, all be it a transitory form of reality, it is a FORM OF reality. The lives of many are seemingly trivial, but there is spiritual progress made through the lessons learned in trivia - therefore the lives which seem so trivial become so SIGNIFICANT, and yours too, do not waste it in full time with-drawl.

For sure with-drawl as a temporary respite is of merit, but look at the Sages and ask the question; why do they act?
Even Buddha who taught the illusion of the world and self was active in the world. He knew that the world is an appearance of reality, only because it is not timeless did he call it illusion (or I would say he called it appearance).

[Blair]

How old are you Little Idiot?

You seem full of fire and vigour, but you do realize that you are for the most part preaching to the choir?

[Little Idiot]

How old are you Little Idiot?

You seem full of fire and vigour, but you do realize that you are for the most part preaching to the choir?

I am in my early fourties, why do you ask? Do I seem full of youthfull over confidence?

Fire and vigour? well, thanks, I think.

Am I preaching? Sorry I will try to stop, because preaching seems like something one should not do. I cant guarantee I will stop though, as I didnt really notice I was doing it ;-)

What do you mean by 'to the choir'? do you mean everyone already know what I said? Sometime we can gain from being reminded about what we know.

[Is.]

Jupiviv. Knowing the ego or self to be a computer program, or a dependently arisen bubble - there is nothing wrong with it. It is empty, like everything else. So why the need to get rid of it? The attempt at getting rid of the ego is nothing else than the ego perpetuating itself. Just like a wave is waving, just like a dog is barking - so the ego is ego-ing.

So I go and prepare some food. I go to work. I sit in the garden. I get wasted and fall asleep in a gutter. This is enlightenment; this is Truth.

(The key is the first word of this post - knowing. If you do not have the wisdom in knowing the self (and all phenomena) as compounded, then sitting in the garden, getting drunk or eating will not be enlightened activity. The subject/object split will be intact.)

[Sapius]

Jupiviv. Knowing the ego or self to be a computer program, or a dependently arisen bubble - there is nothing wrong with it. It is empty, like everything else. So why the need to get rid of it? The attempt at getting rid of the ego is nothing else than the ego perpetuating itself. Just like a wave is waving, just like a dog is barking - so the ego is ego-ing.

So I go and prepare some food. I go to work. I sit in the garden. I get wasted and fall asleep in a gutter. This is enlightenment; this is Truth.

(The key is the first word of this post - knowing. If you do not have the wisdom in knowing the self (and all phenomena) as compounded, then sitting in the garden, getting drunk or eating will not be enlightened activity. The subject/object split will be intact.)

I think the point is; the subject/object split always remains intact irrelevant of an individuals knowledge or claim otherwise.

[Is.]

the subject/object split always remains intact...

But there is no such split. You are like a person telling himself there are cold water and cool shade in a desert mirage. Of course it appears to be that way to people who don't know the true nature of a mirage, but in actuality, there is no water or shade.

But don't take my word for it. Run over to that mirage, thirsty and warm as you are, and see for yourself.

[Sapius]

the subject/object split always remains intact...

But there is no such split. You are like a person telling himself there are cold water and cool shade in a desert mirage. Of course it appears to be that way to people who don't know the true nature of a mirage, but in actuality, there is no water or shade.

But don't take my word for it. Run over to that mirage, thirsty and warm as you are, and see for yourself.

I did, and quite deep into the desert in fact, and found that the old information was simply replaced by a new one, but the “I” (ego in my books) and that which the “I” experiences always necessarily remains as NOT the “I”. Otherwise, I am NOT a conscious thing, for being conscious necessarily means a thing being conscious of something else, by definition, which is a necessity even in the claim of being self-conscious, for an “I” has to necessarily experience a differentiation between a self and none self, to realize, or even feel a self to begin with. No differentiation, (or “split”, say Yin (slash) Yang) between the “I” and the not “I”, no consciousness or existence to feel, think or speak of.

[Is.]

for being conscious necessarily means a thing being conscious of something else...

Yes, that is the story.

But if you investigate into experience, what is happening? Take vision for example, in the morning we wake up, and a world appears in vision. This is undeniable. But then a story pops up: "I am seeing". This is actually not true. The truth is: seeing. Seeing happens, without anyone doing it.

This is not spiritual fluffy-talk. This is scientific fact - the ego is just a story in that it doesn't exist as an independent entity in charge of seeing, walking, thinking, etc. The reality of a human being is brain + conditioning, no intrinsically existing self or I is actually needed.

On another level I agree with you however. People who say "I have transcended the I", or "I am No-Self", or "I am not here", etc etc are all just as much lost in story as the ones who say "I am here". Here is a self, seriously believing he is not a self - it is ridiculous. Reality is free of all conceptualization.

Nagarjuna, Mulamadhyamakakarika, 15:10:

अस्तीति शाश्वतग्राहो नास्तीत्युच्चेददर्शनं
astīti śāśvatagrāho nāstītyuccedadarśanaṁ
(To say) "Is," is eternity-grasping; (to say) "Is not," is a nihilistic view.
तस्माद् अस्तित्वनास्तित्वे नाश्रीयेत विचक्षण
tasmād astitvanāstitve nāśrīyeta vicakṣaṇaḥ
Therefore, those of discerning vision would not have recourse to Is-ness and Is-not-ness.

[Is.]

The truth really is that seeing happens with anyone doing it.

Can you produce any evidence of this I? Where is it? How big? What shape? When exactly did it begin to exist?